The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1887-12-06
.iIl OF sale would be destroved by

]
Whiting.
We must therefore find that the
complainant has failed to substantiate
this charge, and hold that it is suffi-
GENTLY answered.
We will now consider the third
ground of complaint.
Mr.. Neumann, in his answer says
that after the fire and before he and
Mr.. Whiting agreed to undertake
the collection of the policies, Mr..
Berger, agent for the insurance COM
panies, expressed to HIM (Neumann)
in a friendly. conversation a strong
suspicion that the fire was caused by
an incendiary, that Michiels might
be the guilty person, and that if
proof enough were collected he would
cause him to be prosecuted for arson.
1t was then that he (Neumann)
stated to Berger that he did not be-
lieve those suspicious to he correct,
but the contrary, because Michiels
had placed in his hands the power
of depriving him NIichiels) of any
money which he might obtain on his
policies, and that under such circum-
stances Nichiels would be an idiot
to risk his name and liberty by COM
uniting arson.
Mr.. Neumann claims that at the
time of this conversation he was not
the attorney for NIichiels in the
matter of obtaining the insurance
moneys.
We assume that Mr.. Neumann by
his answer, implies that he had no
other conversation with Berger re-
specting this DILL of sale.
We regret exceedingly that under
the peculiar circumstances of this
case, Mr.. Neumann did not see fit
to obtain an affidavit from Mr.. Ber-
ger, or to call him as a witness. The
charge is a serious one, affecting Mr..
Neumann professionally, and al
though he, in his discretion, alb
stained from obtaining Berger's tes-
timony, The Court feel that it would
have been more satisfactory to them
in dealing with this case if his testi-
mony had been before them.
We do not think that Mr.. Neu-
mann, in telling Mr.. Berger what
he admits he did tell, did so with
any intention to injure his client, or
to prejudice his claim, but that it did
have that effect we think cannot be
denied, as it must have put MIR. Ber-
ger on enquiry.
We cannot agree with Mr.. Neu-
mann in his contention as we I'M
derstand him, that as he was not
at the time of the CONVEX
sation with Berger, in respect Of
Michiels' insurance money, he was
not betraying the confidence of his
client by stating what he did to Ber-
ger. We think that the relation of
and client did exist between
them sufficiently, to prevent Mr..
Neumann stating anything which
might prejudice Michiels.
The second ground of complaint
h as given US more anxiety.
Mr.. Neumann claims that he was
and still is of opinion that the bill of
sale did not operate in such way as
TO avoid the policy, and this puts
the Court in this position. We must
either think that Mr.. Neumann was
ignorant of the law on the subject,
or that knowing the law, he did not
advise his client according to his
and for the clients in
terest.
We think that whena compromise |
Of the claims might have been eff
fected, it became Mr.. Neumann's
duty to advise his client that the ex-
ecution of the bill of sale was de-
fence to any action, and his client |
then could have exercised his own
Judgment as to compromising.
We cannot impute ignorance of |
the law to Mr.. Neumann, as it seems
to US to be clear that when he had
he conversation with Berger he
thought that the property had passed
rom Michiels, so as to deprive him
If the right to receive the insurance
The complainant in this case is a
Belgian and not we'll acquainted with
he English language, and is evil
lently not a man of good business
habits, and is liable to misapprehend
he effect of conversations had with
lin and of acts done.
We cannot but be much impressed
With the manner and circumstances
lnder which it is admitted the bill
# sale was executed and with the
orm of it.
1t is said that the sole object of
he transfer was to protect Michiels'
nd his clerks bondsmen. This OBJ
act does not appear on the face of